Can an automated sleep detection algorithm for waist-worn accelerometry replace sleep logs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test whether estimates of bedtime, wake time, and sleep period time (SPT) were comparable between an automated algorithm (ALG) applied to waist-worn accelerometry data and a sleep log (LOG) in an adult sample. A total of 104 participants were asked to log evening bedtime and morning wake time and wear an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer at their waist for 24 h/day for 7 consecutive days. Mean difference and mean absolute difference (MAD) were computed. Pearson correlations and dependent-sample t tests were used to compare LOG-based and ALG-based sleep variables. Effect sizes were calculated for variables with significant mean differences. A total of 84 participants provided 2+ days of valid accelerometer and LOG data for a total of 368 days. There was no mean difference (p = 0.47) between LOG 472 ± 59 min and ALG SPT 475 ± 66 min (MAD = 31 ± 23 min, r = 0.81). There was no significant mean difference between bedtime (2348 h and 2353 h for LOG and ALG, respectively; p = 0.14, MAD = 25 ± 21 min, r = 0.92). However, there was a significant mean difference between LOG (0741 h) and ALG (0749 h) wake times (p = 0.01, d = 0.11, MAD = 24 ± 21 min, r = 0.92). The LOG and ALG data were highly correlated and relatively small differences were present. The significant mean difference in wake time might not be practically meaningful (Cohen's d = 0.11), making the ALG useful for sample estimates. MAD, which gives a better estimate of the expected differences at the individual level, also demonstrated good evidence supporting ALG individual estimates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".